32

Can the minimum be eliminated?
At least for Meta, where the information is more useful?

I've never understood this restriction.

Improve this question
3
  • 8
    But... Then nothing fun happens at 1k!
    – Shog9
    Commented Jan 27, 2010 at 2:28
  • 1
    Background: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/747/…
    – random
    Commented Jan 27, 2010 at 2:32
  • 1
    @Shog9 - then come up with some other <strike>unicorns</strike> features to give a 1k user.
    – ripper234
    Commented Jan 24, 2013 at 16:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
9

We just thought it would be fun to give folks something at 1000 rep, since there was a bit of a gap between 500 (retag) and 2000 (edit other people's posts).

Improve this answer
11
  • 22
    And the free pony at 1k option was just too expensive.
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Jan 27, 2010 at 4:48
  • 4
    This makes sense for SO and SU and Sf, but for meta a lot of users might come here from the other sites and be less active meta browsers and as such not have a high rep on meta. Someone with a high rep on another site should get those privileges on meta (but the same does not hold true for SO/SU/SF cross over)
    – Sam
    Commented Jan 27, 2010 at 5:37
  • 5
    Are you going to do something about the much bigger gap between 3K and 10K?
    – SLaks
    Commented Jan 27, 2010 at 14:58
  • 1
    @SLaks: Why? At 3K you've got all sorts of abilities. You've arrived. The 10K abilities are not nearly as useful. Besides, 500 to 2K is a multiple of four, while 3K to 10K is logarithmically smaller, being a multiple of three.
    – David Thornley
    Commented Jan 27, 2010 at 15:06
  • 2
    @David: I disagree. I quite like the ability to see deleted posts.
    – SLaks
    Commented Jan 28, 2010 at 3:26
  • @SLaks: Yes, but if you asked me which ability I'd rather have, vote to close or handle deleted posts, I wouldn't spend a millisecond thinking about the answer.
    – David Thornley
    Commented Jan 28, 2010 at 14:37
  • 23
    Jeff, I understand where you're coming from, but hiding certain 'usability features' behind rep limits is counter-productive. Reputation should only be used to limit access to dangerous features. For the non-dangerous features like this one, let everyone have more fun instead of limiting the fun to a small subset of users. And think harder on how to make 1000 folk happy.
    – ripper234
    Commented Apr 11, 2010 at 13:03
  • 5
    I agree with ripper234. I never noticed the rep requirement because the feature was implemented after I had already hit 1K rep, but it is bugging me on all the new sites. I think the feature should be available to everyone.
    – JohnFx
    Commented Sep 9, 2010 at 16:06
  • I don't think it's such a secret knowledge that it should require so high rep.
    – Cjxcz Odjcayrwl
    Commented May 29, 2012 at 9:22
  • Personally I found it motivating. The whole privileges-tied-to-rep thing is surely designed to hook us and leave us wanting more. It lures you to become an active member of the community. There are so many people posting that SO needs an army of answerers and a smaller army of edit suggesters, a smaller still army of reviewers and a yet smaller army of moderators. Rep hooks you and keeps you addicted. This vast pool of expertise is why everyone wants help from SO, and what keeps SO alive. It's got to have a balance of elitism and populism, and keeping the masses wanting more is important.
    – AndrewC
    Commented Sep 22, 2012 at 23:49
  • 4
    Related to what @ripper234 said, I also belive that if the score is low enough (which appens on a low traffic site) knowing if that +2 is +2/-0 or +3/-1 can be usefull - many users still do not feel like commenting on downvote, so by hidding this feature you are hidding the most immediate way to know that the vote existed.
    – ꓢPArcheon
    Commented Jan 24, 2013 at 11:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .